Hats off to Lycett for a cashshredding stunt well done

Joe Lycett’s most recent act involved an interesting rate of exchange. I understand that the threat of shredding £10,000 if his demands of David Beckham were not met had a very effective promotional value. It won the column inches as intended.

The stunt has undoubtedly had a positive effect for Lycett’s LGBT+ cause, and Lycett has now confirmed that no real money was destroyed. The argument had already been won and publicity for the cause – the purpose of the stunt – achieved. A job well done.

There is undoubtedly a matter of integrity involved, but one is allowed to sell a dummy in football matters. It might even be considered witty – and a win all round.

David Nelmes Newport

Upping my letter-writing game

It seems to me the most positive thing about the Qatar World Cup 2022 is that serial letter writers like me have a different topic to address, rather than pointing the finger at our woeful government.

I could follow Harriet Williamson in boycotting the tournament but I don’t follow football anyway, so it would be akin to commencing a boycott of foie gras or suntan beds, both of which are anathema to me.

I suppose the best I can do is vow to drink Budweiser for the duration to help restore their profits after the last-minute ban by the Gulf state authorities. Trouble is, I don’t like Budweiser!

Robert Boston Kent

One Love isn’t for everyone

Whilst it may appear unreasonable for Fifa to veto the wearing of One Love armbands by team captains in Qatar wishing to declare their understandable support for LGBT+ rights, we have to remember that the governing body represents virtually every country on the planet, in 69 of which homosexuality is illegal.

One can imagine the outrage if, in response, the Iranian regime ordered their captain to wear an anti-gay rights emblem on his arm in response, so let’s appreciate Fifa’s position here.

Colin Burke Cartmel, Cumbria

Lording it over us

I am a pensioner and I too disagree with the make-up and methods of elevation to the House of Lords. I believe it should be a meritocracy with members representing all parts of society, including from all age groups. It should not be involved in shortterm party politics, but examine prospective legislation from a strategic perspective focused entirely on what is best for the nation.

I resent the implication that just because you are no longer working full time, you are a reactionary, stuck in your ways, no longer having a value in planning the future. Many pensioners, including a lot in the House of Lords, have the skills and experience to make them worthy of a place in a higher parliamentary chamber. Wisdom and experience are valuable assets and no one should be there purely because of an accident of birth.

Many Lords are there due to experience in the judiciary, business, the arts and charitable organisations. They are, on the whole, a highly educated group of people. Some, however, are there because they are pals of past prime ministers, went to the “right school” or greased the right palms, and will back the policies of one party over another. How members of a new upper chamber would be selected and remunerated, and how long they should serve, are by far the greater problems.

Anne Robson

Of course the House of Lords should be abolished. It is a gross affront to democracy. I suggest it should be replaced by a representative assembly of the most prominent democratically constituted bodies within civil society. Each would send one individual who would assume the current responsibilities of those in the Lords. Imagine each political party with one member only. Likewise the TUC and the CBI.

Organisations as varied as the Women’s Institute, Campaign for Rural Britain, The Caravan Club, The Sutton Trust and faith groups could have a voice in the manner in which legislation is debated and amended in parliament. This would provide a truer representation of the people‘s views than is currently the case, with the House of Lords packed with political hacks.

Each new lord would assume their seat after a general election and would serve until the next election when their respective bodies would select their representative anew. Wastrels and scoundrels could easily be identified and excluded as soon as practicable. And of course, no political affiliation would be tolerated. The whole point is to keep politicians honest and prevent them from marking their own homework.

Want your views to be included in The Independent Daily Edition letters page? Email us by tapping here letters@independent.co.uk. Please include your address BACK TO TOP